http://ballast-outreach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu

VOLUME THREE � FALL 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GREETINGS 1 AND 12

CALIFORNIA’S BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT 2 TO 5

TRACKING PATTERNS OF INVASION 6,7 AND 9

INDUSTRY ON THE MOVE 8 AND 9

ON LINE 9

U.S. PORTS ENDORSE BALLAST WATERMANAGEMENT LEGISLATION 10

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL BALLAST WATER SURVEY 10

THE GLOBAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 11

CONTACTS 11

CALENDAR 12

GREETINGS

By Karen Hart McDowell, California Sea Grant ExtensionProgram

Welcome to the third edition of the Ballast Exchange, the biannualnewsletter of California Sea Grant Extension’s West Coast BallastOutreach Project. This issue is highlighted by a progress report onCalifornia’s ballast water management program. We hope you enjoyreading this report along with the other articles in this edition. In addi-tion to the newsletter, we have also continued work on several otheroutreach materials and events.

I am happy to announce that our educational poster and brochure onballast water exchange are ready for distribution! These products arevery attractive and informative, thanks to the efforts of writer/editorJoan Patton from the San Francisco Estuary Project and illustrator EdLindlof. I would like to thank the National Sea Grant College Programand the CalFed Bay-Delta Program for funding our project and theposter and brochure. With this funding we will be able to distributethese products free of charge. We would also like to thank the U.S.Coast Guard, the California State Lands Commission, and the Port ofLong Beach for covering the printing costs of the posters andbrochures that they will distribute. Their contributions have allowed usto increase the total number of posters and brochures that will beprinted. Samples of our poster and brochure will be posted on ourweb site in the near future. To obtain copies of the poster andbrochure, please contact me by e-mail (kdhart@ucdavis.edu) or byphone (510-622-2398).

We have also continued to organize and participate in various ballastwater conferences and workshops. We cosponsored two events withthe Pacific Ballast Water Group. The first was a workshop, “A BallastWater Research Agenda for the 21st Century,” that took place in Julyduring the Coastal Society’s 17th International Conference inPortland, Oregon. The second event was a teleconference with the

West Coast Ballast Outreach Project Brochure

(continued on back page)

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ballast Water Management for Control ofNonindigenous Species Act of 1999 (Act) established astatewide, multi-agency program to prevent or reduce theintroduction and spread of nonindigenous aquatic species(NAS) into California state waters.

Implementation began January 1, 2000, and is under thedirection of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC)in consultation with other state and federal agencies. Thetotal budget is $6.67 million over four years and includes aninspection and monitoring program under the CSLC. TheCalifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will con-duct biological surveys to determine the extent of NAS intro-ductions in state waters. The State Water Resources ControlBoard (SWRCB) will evaluate alternatives to mid-oceanexchange, and the Board of Equalization (BOE) will collectfees. The Program is funded through the assessment of a$400 fee for each qualifying voyage. While the program hadsome initial problems with fee payment and reporting, com-pliance rates have improved dramatically.

BACKGROUND

On October 8, 1999, California’s governor signed AssemblyBill 703, creating the Ballast Water Management for Controlof Nonindigenous Species Act (Act), which became effectiveon January 1, 2000. The Act addresses a problem that hasbecome all the more urgent as international commerceincreases, resulting in a corresponding increase in the speedwith which NAS are being introduced. The introduction ofNAS has created ecological, operational, and engineeringdisasters in many areas of the United States and worldwide.Nonindigenous aquatic species are commonly reported inSan Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and many smallerharbors and embayments throughout California.

The California Legislature recognized the significance of theproblem and established, through passage of the Act, a stateprogram that addresses the issue by making ballast watermanagement mandatory. The law applies to all U.S. orforeign vessels that enter California waters afteroperating outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ). Vessels must either conduct a mid-ocean

exchange of ballast water or retain all ballast water on boardthe vessel. The program also assesses the current conditionof the marine environment and evaluates alternativemethodology for controlling NAS introductions.

The Act established a statewide multi-agency program withthe intent to control the introduction and spread of NAS instate waters. Responsible agencies identified in the lawinclude the CSLC, CDFG, SWRCB and the BOE. Eachagency is required to work in cooperation with the others indeveloping reports and conducting research into the extentof current invasions, and potential long-term solutions to theproblem of NAS introductions.

The CSLC is responsible for developing and implementingthe ballast water inspection and monitoring program, andevaluating the effectiveness of the Act. The CSLC’s programincludes the establishment of a fee schedule for vesselsoperating in California waters, collection of vessel-specificballast water management data, field inspection of ballastwater and sediments from vessels, synthesis and analysis ofmonitoring and inspection information to evaluate the effec-tiveness of the program, and enforcement of the law, throughthe imposition of administrative civil penalties.

The CDFG, Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response(OSPR), is responsible for conducting research to determinethe location and extent of NAS populations in state coastaland estuarine waters. The SWRCB is responsible for con-ducting studies to evaluate alternatives for treating and oth-erwise managing ballast water to prevent the introductionand spread of NAS into state waters. Finally, the BOE isresponsible for the collection and deposition of fees into the“Exotic Species Control Fund,” which will pay for thestatewide programs.

CURRENT STATUS

SHIPPING PATTERNS

From January 1 through August 31, 2000, 4,570 qualifyingvoyages, by 1,650 different vessels, entered California ports.Nearly 50% of these vessel calls were container vessels,13% each were tank and bulk vessels, with general cargo,auto carriers and passenger vessels each constituting

CALIFORNIA’S BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAM

PROGRESS REPORT — SEPTEMBER 2000By Maurya B. Falkner, Program Manager, California Ballast Water Management Program, California StateLands Commission, Marine Facilities Division

approximately 10% of the vessel calls (Figure 1). Nearly45% of the vessel calls identified a last port of call (LPOC)as a Far East port, such as Japan, China, and the Koreas.Twenty percent of the vessel calls originated from PacificNorth American ports in Canada and Mexico, while 13%called at a South American port prior to arriving inCalifornia (Figure 2).

Nearly 4.6 million metric tons of ballast water was dis-charged into California ports between January 1 andAugust 31, 2000. Nearly 50% of those vessels dischargingballast in California originated from Far East ports, andmore than 30% came from Mexican ports.

COMPLIANCE

Under Section 71205(a), ship agents, along with the mas-ter, owner, operator or person in charge, are responsiblefor submitting the ballast water reporting form for eachvoyage prior to the vessel leaving the first port of call inCalifornia. Letters were sent to nearly 80 ship agents inDecember 1999 explaining their responsibility under thenew law. During the first three months of the program, thestaff of the CSLC sent “Letters of Concern” to several ofthese agents. However, compliance with the reportingrequirements during that time was less than 60%statewide and several large ship agents had compliancerates of less than 50%.

Despite the initial outreach letter to all agents and thefocused letters of concern to “problem” agents, complianceduring the second quarter of the year was still unsatisfac-tory. Beginning in May 2000, enforcement letters were sent to nine ship agents for violations of Section 71205(a).These agents all had significant numbers of non-compliantvessels and had received at least one “letter of concern”during the preceding quarter. Additionally, staff referredone case to the CDFG’s Office of Spill Prevention andResponse for further enforcement action. CSLC staff metwith eight of the nine shipping companies between Juneand August 2000. Because of those meetings, all the shipagents initiated procedures designed to improve compli-ance and further enforcement action has been suspendedat this time. The subsequent submission of outstandingforms has resulted in an overall compliance of 87% (Table 1).

INSPECTIONS

Representatives from the two CSLC Marine FacilitiesDivision field offices have boarded and inspected approxi-mately 25% of the qualifying voyages during the first eightmonths of the Program. Inspections have been conductedon over 650 different vessels. Each vessel is boarded,paperwork is evaluated, tanks are sampled for complianceand educational material is provided to the ship’s crew. Areport, summarizing the results of the inspection is provid-ed to the crew. The majority (75%) of those vessels board-ed comply with the law. Violations noted are primarilyassociated with administrative components of the law(incomplete ballast water management plans, no IMOguidelines on board, etc.). Less than five percent of theviolations noted during inspections are associated with therequired mid-ocean exchange of ballast water. Of thesefive percent, over 80% are passenger vessels coming fromMexican ports. The CSLC is working with these vessels toidentify alternative exchange zones and or managementtechniques that will ensure compliance with the law in anenvironmentally sound manner.

3

Figure 2. LAST PORT OF CALL (3971 vessel calls)

Figure 1. VESSELS BY TYPE - STATEWIDE(through August 31, 2000)

(continued on page 4)

INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

By John Berge, Vice President, Pacific MerchantShipping Association

The maritime industry has been attuned since 1995 to the issueof nonindigenous species residing in ship’s ballast water and theirintroduction into the aquatic environment through the operationalnecessity of ballast discharge. Prior to then, vessels consideredballast water to be a benign discharge of “‘clean”’ water with the pri-mary focus of mariners on other potential discharges with knownenvironmental consequences, such as petroleum products, blackand gray water and deck runoff. Mariners are now planning theirballast water exchanges with as much foresight to, and in conjunc-tion with, cargo stowage, navigational routing and vessel stability.

Ocean-going vessels calling in California fall under the regula-tion of the Ballast Water Management for Control of NonindigenousSpecies Act, which went into effect in January of 2000. TheCalifornia State Lands Commission (CSLC) oversees this pro-gram. Prior to this California law, vessels calling in California portsabided by U.S. Coast Guard regulations for voluntary ballastreporting and exchange. Although the Coast Guard program is stillin effect, with an overlap in reporting guidelines, the California pro-gram is mandatory and is funded through a per vessel fee. As withany new regulation, especially a state-specific regulation, severalvessels were errant in both their reporting and fee payment com-pliance earlier this year. After an aggressive campaign of educationby CSLC together with the assistance of ship operators andagents, the compliance level has improved dramatically.

California has taken a lead on the West Coast in the collectionand analysis of ballast water data. The recent involvement of theState Water Quality Board in the program promises to provide valu-able data on the effectiveness of available and potential methodsof treatment. Through the sharing of this data between Californiaagencies and other state agencies, port authorities, vessel ownersand operators, the U.S. Coast Guard and international organiza-tions such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), it isthe maritime industry’s hope that a unified national or internationalapproach can be developed. It is in this context that national orinternational standards for the level and type of ballast water treat-ment required need to be developed. The international scope ofthe ocean going maritime industry favors consistency in regula-tions of this kind. A ship travelling between ports in the three WestCoast states and British Columbia must currently adhere to fourdifferent governing regulations with differing reporting require-ments and even differences between what is an acceptable bal-lasting source. Although it is recognized that ecosystems will varyover geographical areas, this is an issue that ultimately needs to beaddressed with a worldwide perspective. The Ballast WaterOutreach program and the National Invasive Species Task Forcehave performed a valuable service in facilitating the sharing ofinformation and data, which we hope will further this goal. The IMO,through the formation of the Global Program Task Force (GPTF), isproviding a similar forum on an international basis. Locally, indus-try is working closely with the CSLC to ensure the success of theCalifornia program and its resulting data. The shipping communityis anxious to assist these state, federal and international organiza-

tions in finding a solution to this problem.

4

OUTREACH/EDUCATION

Communication among the maritime industry, CSLC andother regulating entities is vital to the success of theCalifornia program. CSLC has initiated several outreach andeducational programs in the past eight months to improvecommunication among the stakeholders. For example, anupdated ballast water web page is found on the CSLC webpage. Information on the law, new regulations, and synopsisof meetings, notification of upcoming meetings, and links toother related web pages can be accessed easily. CSLC, inconjunction with state and federal agencies and the maritimeindustry, has participated in or hosted more than 10 work-shops/conferences on ballast water management in the pasteight months.

Beginning in July 2000, the CSLC initiated a monthly e-mailprocedure to notify the maritime industry of vessels that havenot submitted the required ballast water report forms. Thisprocedure has been well received by the industry and hasresulted in a steady improvement in compliance. The compliancerate for the months of July and August were over 90%.

Finally, the formation of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG)made up of members of the maritime industry and stateagencies has proved beneficial in determining an appropri-ate fee amount and in addressing issues related specificallyto the implementation of the California law. The TAG meetsquarterly to assess the effectiveness of the program and thestatus of the fund.

PARTNERSHIPS

CSLC is finalizing a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S.Coast Guard to streamline both programs, to reduce duplica-tive inspections, to share data at the regional and nationallevels, and to cooperate in research programs addressingnew verification techniques and ballast water treatment tech-nology. CSLC is an active member in several ballast waterrelated groups, such as the Pacific Ballast Water Group,Ballast Outreach Advisory Team, and the Pacific BallastWater Pilot Project (Table 2). Participants work toward con-sistent ballast water management regulations on a regionallevel while sharing data and evaluating alternative exchangezones off shore and feasible treatment technologies.

FUTURE PLANS

CSLC staff is working with passenger vessel companies,state agencies and the scientific community to identify poten-tial alternative exchange zones within 200 nautical miles ofland. Several companies have joined forces to develop astudy plan that would evaluate the biological organisms andocean current patterns in areas off the Baja California coast.

5

Working with CDFG and the U.S. Coast Guard, CSLC willevaluate the study plan and final results to determine if theproposed area is an appropriate alternative exchange zonefor vessels coming into California waters from Mexican ports.

CSLC staff is also working with the technology developmentsector to identify potential ballast water treatment systems.CSLC is facilitating the transfer of information among thetechnology development and maritime industries and thestate and federal agencies. Recently CSLC was awarded agrant for a proposal titled “West Coast Regional AppliedBallast Management Research and Demonstration Project”from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National SeaGrant College Program. This project proposes to evaluateand install a shipboard ballast water treatment system on a qual-ified “volunteer” vessel. The vessel would then participate inWashington State’s Ballast Water Pilot Program, where the real-time effectiveness of the treatment technology will be evaluated.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

By Linda Sheehan, Director, Pacific RegionOffice, Center for Marine Conservation

The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), a co-sponsorof AB 703, welcomes the efforts by the State LandsCommission and others to implement and enforce thisprecedent-setting law. CMC particularly applauds the rela-tively high (25%) boarding rate in the first eight months ofthe program. A high boarding rate is needed to inform theindustry about the details of the program, recognize theefforts of vessel crews that do comply, and obtain the infor-mation needed for enforcement actions against those whochoose not to comply.

CMC believes that any proposals to allow for alternativeexchange zones within 200 nautical miles of shore shouldreceive careful scrutiny to ensure that they maximize pro-tection against harmful invasive species. These zonesshould be limited either to ships arriving from the samebioregion as the waters off California (as defined by thor-ough scientific and technical reviews) or ships that couldnot exchange or treat ballast due to legitimate safetyissues.

AB 703 has prompted similar ballast control efforts aroundthe country, including in Washington and Michigan. CMC isworking to ensure that these states are not alone in theiractions to protect the environment and economy from inva-sive species carried in ships’ ballast. For example, EPAshould respond in the next few weeks to a petition by CMCand other groups to regulate ballast water under the CleanWater Act. Nationwide, mandatory controls would level theplaying field for vessels complying with AB 703 and makeput them ahead of the curve on compliance.

Table 1. BALLAST WATER REPORT FORM

COMPLIANCE

CA Port/ # of Qualifying # of BW PercentPlace Voyages Reports in Compliance

Humboldt 20 11 5 5 %

Sacramento 40 31 7 6 %

Stockton 69 60 8 7 %

Carquinez Strait 141 111 7 9 %

Richmond 117 106 9 1 %

Oakland 415 326 7 8 %

San Francisco 65 56 8 6 %

Redwood City 18 12 6 7 %

Hueneme 177 166 9 4 %

LA/Long Beach 3306 2857 8 6 %

San Diego 202 188 9 3 %

TOTAL 4570 3924 8 7 %

Table 2. CSLC-MFD PARTNERSHIPS

� US COAST GUARD

Coordination, Data Sharing & Research

� WASHINGTON STATE

Pacific Ballast Water Pilot Project

� US FISH & WILDLIFE/SEA GRANT

West Cost Demonstration Pilot Project

� PACIFIC BALLAST WATER GROUP

Regional Coordination of Management and Research

� BALLAST OUTREACH ADVISORY TEAM

� BW TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM

� PORT OF OAKLAND/NMFS/SMITHSONIAN

Ballast Water and Sediment Sampling

6

Nonindigenous species are dispersed around the globe by many dif-ferent mechanisms. Recently, our attention has focused on ballastwater as a mechanism of transport (Carlton and Geller 1993).However, other mechanisms of transport have existed over the entirehistory of human-mediated movement of marine and estuarinespecies. For example, the movement of adult oysters for culturing,which is uncommon today but was widespread in the 19th century,caused the spread of a diverse assemblage of organisms attached tooyster shells (Carlton 1989). Ships with wooden hulls have spread foul-ing organisms for centuries (Carlton and Hodder 1995). As populations of exoticspecies become established in new regions, these populations themselves becomepotential sources for new invasions mediated by the same or different mechanisms.Zebra mussels, for example, are thought to have come to North America in ballastwater, but small craft and trailering of small craft may be responsible for moving

TRACKING PATTERNS OF INVASION

By Jonathan B. Geller, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

TABLE 1. Frequencies of microsatellite alleles at microsatellite locus CM9 for green crabs

in Atlantic Europe (Netherlands, Spain), Mediterranean Europe (France, Italy) and six invadedregions. Green crabs from Atlantic Europe and most invaded regions possess all that are pre-dominantly 272 base pairs or smaller. Green crabs in Mediterranean Europe and Japan possessalleles that are predominantly 300 base pairs in size or larger. Two alleles identified in Japanwere intermediate in size to alleles observed in native crabs.

Locale Allele Size Range (base pairs) 198-272 276-280 300-360

Netherlands 0.99 0.01

Western Spain 1.00

Southern France 0.06 0.94

Italy 0.07 0.93

Australia 1.000

Tasmania 1.000

Eastern North America 1.000

Western North America 1.000

mtDNA Analysis

Microsatellite DNA(Analysis at locus CM9)

Genetic Variationwithin Population

Source of InvasivePopulation

ATLANTIC COAST OFEUROPE (Atlantic)

1 marker characterstic of region (Referred to as Altantic

mtDNA marker)

Small Sized Alleles(between 198-272 base pairs)

High

N/A

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

1 marker characterstic of region (Referred to as

Mediterranean mtDNA marker)

Large Sized Alleles(between 300-360 base pairs)

High

N/A

AUSTRALIA(Mainland)

Atlantic mtDNAmarker

Small Alleles

Low

Atlantic coast of Europe

TASMANIA

Atlantic mtDNA marker

Small Alleles

Low, and only possess a subset of the alleles that are

found in Australia.

Mainland of Australia(which was invaded from the

Atlantic coast of Europe)

SOURCE REGIONS INVADED REGIONSTABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

zebra mussels from one water-shed to another (Johnson and

Carlton 1996). Determining the sourcesfor invasions may help toidentify measures that mayprevent further invasions,

but this task is not straight-forward. First, as illustrated above, the region

where a species is native is not necessarily thesource for the invasion of other regions. Second,the area where a species is native may be quitebroad, such that the source of invasion can onlybe crudely guessed (eg, “Asia” or “Europe”).Genetic markers can help to pinpoint sources ofinvasion more precisely, and this has been thefocus of our work with one infamous invader ofthe Pacific coast of North America, the EuropeanShore crab Carcinus maenas (also known as the“green crab”). This method depends on uniquegenetic markers, or combinations of geneticmarkers, that are distinct for particular geo-graphic regions (Box 1). Thus, if these markersappear in a new invasion, we can reasonablyinfer the source of that invasion.

Carcinus has two source regions that have dis-tinctive genetic markers, the Atlantic coast ofEurope (Atlantic) and the Mediterranean Sea(Geller et al. 1997). Invasive populations arefound in Eastern North America, Western NorthAmerica, Australia (mainland), Tasmania, Japan,and South Africa. In our studies, we havefocused on two types of DNA to determine thepattern of invasion between these populations.

The first is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (Box 2). Carcinus popula-tions in Eastern North America, Western North America, andAustralia only possessed the Atlantic mtDNA marker, identifying theAtlantic coast of Europe as the population source. In contrast, pop-ulations from Japan and South Africa possessed both theMediterranean and Atlantic mtDNA markers. In South Africa, avail-able evidence points to invasions by both Atlantic andMediterranean crabs. For Japan, other evidence discussed belowsuggests that it was invaded by a single population source, with thegenetic mixing occurring prior to the invasion.

The second type of genetic marker we used was microsatellite DNA(Box 3). We assessed the presence and number of each allele inpopulations in Europe and in introduced populations (Bagley andGeller 2000). Between the two source populations, Atlantic andMediterranean, nearly fixed differences in the sizes of microsatellitealleles were observed at one locus, CM9 (Table 1) (Bagley andGeller 2000). The Atlantic source population had small alleles atthis locus and the Mediterranean population had large alleles at thislocus. Introduced populations in Australia, Tasmania, Eastern NorthAmerica, and Western North America had small alleles at this locusthat were characteristic of the Atlantic form of green crab. Theseresults are consistent with the results from the first test. Greencrabs in Japan did not possess any of the small alleles character-istic of the Atlantic populations at the highly diagnostic locus CM9,but rather appeared to be derived from Mediterranean populations.This suggests that the crabs in Japan came from a single popula-tion in the Mediterranean. In contrast, the South African populationpossessed large and small alleles, suggesting that green crabshave invaded South Africa more than once.

A key pattern that has emerged is the severe loss of genetic varia-tion that occurs with invasion. Thus, Carcinus populations inEastern North America possess only a subset of the alleles thatwere present in Europe. Each independent invasion possesses adifferent subset of alleles. We found that alleles in Tasmania werea subset of alleles found in mainland Australia, and that allelesfound in Western North America were a subset of those found inEastern North America. Thus, natural or anthropogenic dispersalhas spread the Australian invasion to Tasmania after a 100 yeardelay. In North America, it is likely that ballast water transport, or

the movement of adult crabs in bait or by hand, resulted in the leapfrog-like movement of crabs across the continent. A summary of all of the results can be viewed in Table 2. Theseresults demonstrate the power of microsatellite DNA analysis forstudying marine bioinvasions. Our data indicate that green crabswere able to successfully invade several regions despite losinglarge amounts of genetic variation and suggest that a new trend isemerging in which prior introductions have become stepping stonesfor new invasions. Genetic characterization of native and intro-duced populations of additional marine bioinvading species is like-

ly to be a fruitful research approach and will allow assessment ofthe generality of our results.

Box 3. Microsatellite DNA refers to regions of each organism’sgenome that consist of repeated simple patterns of two to six nucleotidebase pairs. For example, a dinucleotide microsatellite might be CArepeated 40 times. This can be written as (CA)40. Microsatellites havethe tendency to mutate rapidly by the addition or deletion of repeat units.Thus, another individual of the same species might contain thesequence (CA)41. Within a population, many such variants may exist,allowing ample opportunities for isolated populations to drift geneticallyso that different sets of alleles are common and rare.

7

Box 1. The use of genetic markers takes advantage of the evolu-tionary process in which mutations to DNA produce novel DNAsequences (“alleles,” in genetic parlance, or “markers,” more colloquial-ly). If two populations are isolated (limited exchange of breeding organ-isms between populations), then a new marker may become common inone population but not in the other. In this way, sets of markers becomecharacteristic of one population but are rare elsewhere. If markers froma native population are also found in an exotic population, it is statisti-cally most probable that the native population is the source.

Box 2. Mitochondria are cellular organelles that contain their ownDNA. MtDNA is inherited only from mother to offspring, without paternalinfluence, in most organisms. It also tends to accumulate mutationsfaster than the DNA found in the cell’s nucleus. These properties havemade mtDNA a favorite for the analysis of geographic patterns of genet-ic differentiation (Avise 2000).

EASTERN NORTH AMERICA

Atlantic mtDNA marker

Small Alleles

Low

Altantic coast of Europe

WESTERN NORTH AMERICA

Atlantic mtDNA marker

Small Alleles

Low, and only possess a subset of the alleles that are found in

Eastern North America

Eastern North America(which was invaded from the Atlantic coast of Europe)

SOUTH AFRICA

Atlantic mtDNA marker and Mediterranean mtDNA marker

Large Alleles

Relatively large genetic variability

for an invasive population

Atlantic coast of Europe andthe Mediterranean Sea

(multiple invasions)

JAPAN

Altantic mtDNA marker and Mediteranean mtDNA marker

Large Alleles

Low

Mediterranean Sea(genetic mixing of mtDNA markersprobably happened in the source

population prior to the invasion to Japan)

INVADED REGIONS-CONT.

SEE PAGE 9 FOR LITERATURE REFERENCES

8

IIII NNNN DDDD UUUU SSSS TTTT RRRR YYYY OOOO NNNN TTTT HHHH EEEE

Open ocean exchange is not a practical managementoption for most cruise ships, since many cruise shipsnever venture far from the coastline. Currently this is amajor issue in California, where cruise ships that travelfrom Southern California to Mexico are required by statelaw to conduct an open ocean exchange (at least 200 nau-tical miles offshore) before discharging ballast water inCalifornia state waters. Many of the cruise lines (includingPrincess Cruises) have been working with the CaliforniaState Lands Commission to possibly set up temporaryalternate exchange zones located closer to shore andadditional ballast man-agement practices, untila better solution isfound.

Princess Cruises hasgone a step further andhas taken the initiativeto test the OptimarBallast Water TreatmentSystem on one of theircruise ships, the RegalPrincess. It is an idealplatform for testing thissystem since cruiseships only have to process a very low volume of ballastwater. The Optimar system is designed and manufacturedby OptiMarin Marketing of Stavanger, Norway and distrib-uted by Hyde Marine, Inc. It contains the patentedMicroKill cyclonic separator and the MicroKill ultraviolet(UV) light treatment system. While the ship is ballasting,the water passes through the cyclonic separator, whichremoves the heavier particles/organisms; then it passesthrough the UV system, where the remaining organismsare irradiated (theoretically killing or inactivating theremaining organisms). While deballasting, the water isagain passed through the UV system.

The Optimar Ballast Water Treatment System wasinstalled aboard the Regal Princess in late March 2000,with no interruptions to the ship’s normal operations. Thesystem is located in the ship’s pump room. This system isvery easy to operate and allows the crew to treat the bal-last water without affecting normal operations (i.e. timespent at the dock, or distance traveled from shore).Princess Cruises is very pleased with operational aspectsof this system and hopes to install the system on all of itsships, if it is proven to be effective for treating ballastwater. Efficacy testing, conducted by Allegra Cangelosi

from the Northeast-Midwest Institute, beganin May during a shortfour-day cruise fromVancouver, BC to Alaska.The testing is still inprogress, but preliminaryresults are promising.

Princess Cruises is oneof the first companies totest a ballast water sys-tem on one of their ships.If approved, this systemcould be used on other

cruise ships. Hyde and OptiMarin plan to install test sys-tems on other merchant ships that process larger volumesof ballast water. The results from the “small” systeminstalled on the Regal Princess will speed up developmentof larger scale systems. Princess Cruises andHyde/OptiMarin have been working closely with the vari-ous regulatory agencies to test this system. Collaborativeefforts like these will speed up the approval process forballast water treatment systems, giving companies achoice between open ocean exchange and treatment.

PRINCESS CRUISES TESTS THE OPTIMAR BALLAST WATER TREATMENT

SYSTEM ON THE REGAL PRINCESS

By Karen Hart McDowell, California Sea Grant Extension Program

Regal Princess Cruise Ship

9

ON LINE(Note: Many addresses have changed recently)

ANS Task Forcehttp://www.anstaskforce.gov/

California State Lands Commissionhttp://www.slc.ca.gov/

Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Specieshttp://www/glc.org/ans/anspanel.html

International Maritime Organizationhttp://www.imo.org/

National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse - SERChttp://invasions.si.edu/

Northeast-Midwest Institute - Aquatic Invasive Species Sitehttp://nemw.org/biopollute.htm

USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Sitehttp://nas.er.usgs.gov/

Sea Grant Nonindigenous Species Sitehttp://www.sgnis.org/

U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Programhttp://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/mso4/

West Coast Ballast Outreach Projecthttp://ballast-outreach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu/

MMMM OOOO VVVV EEEE

TRACKING PATTERNS OF INVASION— LITERATURE CITED

Avise, J.C. 2000. Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass

M. J. Bagley and J. B. Geller. 2000. Microsatellite DNA analysis of native and invadingpopulations of European Green crabs. Proceedings of the National Marine BioinvasionsSymposium, MIT Sea Grant Press, in press.

Carlton, J.T. 1989. Man’s role in changing the face of the ocean: biological invasionsand implications for conservation of near-shore environments. Conservation Biology 3,265-273.

Carlton, J.T. and Hodder, J. 1995. Biogeography and dispersal of coastal marine organ-isms: Experimental studies on a replica of a 16th-century sailing vessel. Marine Biology.4: 721-730.

Carlton, J.T. and Geller, J.B. 1993. Ecological roulette: the global transport and inva-sion of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science, 261: 78-82.

Cohen, A.N., Carlton, J.T. and Fountain, M.C.1995. Introduction, dispersal and poten-tial impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California.Marine Bbiology 122: 225-237.

Geller, J.B., Walton, E., Grosholz., E, and Ruiz, G. 1997. Cryptic invasions of the crabCarcinus detected by molecular phylogeography. Molecular Ecology, 6: 256-262.

Johnson, L.E. and Carlton, J.T. 1996. Post-establishment spread in large-scale inva-sions: Dispersal mechanisms of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Ecology 77:1686-1690.

Installing Optimar Ballast Treatment System

Optimar Ballast Treatment System

10

U.S. PORTS ENDORSE BALLAST

WATER MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

(Excerpted from AAPA News Release, October16, 2000)

Veracruz, Mexico - In response to the growing trend ofstate laws regulating ballast water discharges from ships,U.S. ports plan to develop a legislative proposal thatwould: 1) establish a strong federal ballast water man-agement program; and, 2) preempt state legislation in thisarea. Port executives gathered in Veracruz, Mexico, inOctober for the 89th Annual American Association of PortAuthorities (AAPA) Annual Convention.

During the October 16 meeting of AAPA’s U.S. LegislativePolicy Council (USLPC) representing the Association’s 84U.S. port members, Chairman of the Board J. RobertBray, PPM®, Executive Director of the Virginia PortAuthority, led the discussion of concepts for legislation inthe area of ballast water and introduction of nonindige-nous species. The USLPC voted unanimously to adoptthe position that reflects Association members’ growingconcern over the development of new ballast regulations.

“The port industry recognizes the serious environmentaland human health risks posed by invasive species, andwe will work with the Congress, the Coast Guard and oth-ers to promote responsible laws, policies, and regulationsrelated to ballast water management,”said Mr. Bray.“AAPA supports solutions to the transportation and intro-duction of nonindigenous aquatic species that are inter-national in scope, flexible in application, and targeted atthe source,” he added.

AAPA’s ballast water legislation will include an amend-ment to the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) to directthe Coast Guard to make mandatory, with a safetyexemption, the current voluntary ballast water exchangeprovision. Under existing law, the Coast Guard cannotmake ballast exchange mandatory until January 2002 atthe earliest, and only then if compliance with the voluntaryprogram is determined to be “inadequate.”

To view the entire News Release, please visit AAPA’s Website at www.aapa-ports.org

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE

NATIONAL BALLAST WATER SURVEY

The first report on the National Ballast Water Survey hasbeen completed by the Smithsonian EnvironmentalResearch Center and the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Interim Report, dated October 2000, is titled “Resultsof the First Year of Data Management and Analysis:Shipping Industry Compliance with Mandatory BallastWater Reporting Requirements, Shipping IndustryCompliance with Voluntary Ballast Water ManagementGuidelines.” It is written by G.M Ruiz, A.W. Miller, R.A.Everett, B. Steve, K. Lion, C. Whitcraft, A, Arnwine, E.Colinetti, M. Sigala, and D Lipski.

A few quotes from the executive summary are as follows:

� “Over the first 12 months (1 July 1999 – 30 June2000) that the rule was in effect, only 20.8% of thevessels that entered U.S. waters from outside theEEZ filed mandatory reports with the Clearinghouse,as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.”

� “For the entire U.S., compliance with reportingimproved only slightly over the 12-month period,remaining between 23% and 29% from October 1999through June 2000.”

� “Due to the poor nationwide reporting rate (20.8%), itremains difficult to estimate reliably (a) the patterns ofballast water delivery and (b) the compliance with vol-untary guidelines for ballast water management.”

� “Of the 12,170 vessels that submitted reports: 70.7%indicated no intention to discharge ballast water with-in U.S. territory; 14.1% declared non-exchange of bal-last water prior to discharge; and 8.9% and 6.3% ofthe reporting vessels declared partial and completeexchange, respectively, of ballast water prior to dis-charge.”

For complete analysis, please review the full report at theNational Ballast Water Clearinghouse on the web athttp://invasions.si.edu/

HHHH OOOO TTTT TTTT OOOO PPPP IIII CCCC SSSS

11

CONTACTS

West Coast Ballast Outreach ProjectJodi Cassell, Marine AdvisorCalifornia Sea Grant300 Piedmont Ave, Rm 305ASan Bruno, CA 94066jlcassell@ucdavis.edu 650-871-7559 fax 650-871-7399

Karen Hart McDowell, Project CoordinatorCalifornia Sea Grant/SFEP1515 Clay St., Suite 1400Oakland, CA 94612kdhart@ucdavis.edu

510-622-2398 fax 510-622-2501

Local Ballast Water ContactsAlaskaRay RaLonde, Alaska Sea Grantafrlr@uaf.edu 907-274-9691

CaliforniaWest Coast Ballast Outreach Project Reps. (above)

HawaiiBruce Miller, Hawaii Sea Grant

bmiller@hawaii.edu 808-956-8645

OregonMark Sytsma, Portland State Universitysytsmam@pdx.edu 503-725-3833

WashingtonScott Smith, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

smithsss@dfw.wa.gov 360-902-2724

Western Regional PanelLinda Drees, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Linda_Drees@fws.gov 913-538-3473 x20

Regional Fish & Wildlife A.N.SRepresentativeDenny Lassuy, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servicedenny_lassuy@fws.gov 503-872-2763

Sea Grant MIST Program CoordinatorPaul Heimowitz, Oregon Sea Grantpaul.heimowitz@orst.edu 503-722-6718

THE GLOBAL BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMEBy Karen Hart McDowell, West Coast Ballast Outreach Projectand Steven Raaymakers, Marine Environment Division, International Maritime Organization

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently joined forceswith the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), member governments, and theshipping industry to assist less-industrialized countries in tackling theballast water problem.

The full title of this new project is Removal of Barriers to the EffectiveImplementation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measuresin Developing Countries. It is more simply referred to as the GlobalBallast Water Management Programme, or GloBallast. This three-yearprogram runs from May 2000 to May 2003 and is funded by the GEFand the six participating countries. This program will assist developingcountries in implementing effective measures to control the introduc-tion of foreign marine species, initially through six demonstration sites.These sites are intended to represent the six main developing regionsof the world:

� Dalian/China - East Asia � Mumbai/India - South Asia � Kharg Island/Iran - Middle East� Saldanha/South Africa - Africa � Odessa/Ukraine - Eastern Europe� Sepitiba/Brazil - South America

As these sites progress, they will be replicated throughout each regionin the future. Lessons learned from the initial demonstration sites willbe valuable in improving ballast water management and reducing thetranslocation of harmful marine species in each region.

GloBallast has a number of immediate objectives linked to specific out-puts and activities. These include education and awareness, ballastwater risk assessments, port baseline studies, ballast water sampling,training of port and shipping personnel, assistance with laws and reg-ulations, and self-financing mechanisms. The education and aware-ness portion of GloBallast includes producing a newsletter, BallastWater News. This newsletter will focus on providing ballast water newsfrom an international perspective. The first issue provides an introduc-tory overview of GloBallast. Future issues will provide updates on theprogram’s progress, as well as articles on the latest developments inscience, engineering, shipping, law and other responses to the prob-lem of introduced marine species. For more information aboutGloBallast, visit the web site (http://globallast.imo.org). To receivefuture issues of Ballast Water News, send an e-mail tombaker@imo.org.

Ballast Exchange is funded in part by a grant from the National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, under grant number NA66RG0477, project number A/EA-2through the California Sea Grant College Program, and in part by the CalFED Bay-Delta Program. The views expressedherein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies.

California Sea Grant

University of California

One Shields Avenue

Davis, California 95616-8751

WELCOME (CONT)

Pacific Ballast Water Group on coastal traffic along the West Coastof the U.S. and Canada, in which we had over 30 participants. InAugust, I was invited to give a presentation at the Prevention First2000 meeting in Long Beach, hosted by the California State LandsCommission. They put together a wonderful two-day conference thatwas highlighted by a session on ballast water that was well attendedby key members from the maritime industry and government agencies.

We continue to enjoy working with our many partners. We look for-ward to continuing our partnerships and creating new ones. Onceagain, we would like to encourage your active participation and feed-back on the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project. We are just a fax,phone call, or e-mail away and always appreciate any comments orsuggestions.

Karen Hart McDowell, Project Coordinator, West Coast Ballast Outreach Project

Jodi Cassell, Marine Advisor, California Sea Grant Extension Program

COMING EVENTS

Second International Conference on Marine BioinvasionsNew Orleans, LouisianaApril 9-11, 2001

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea Grant CollegeProgram and the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program invite you toparticipate in this Conference. The focus is on the incidence, effectsand management of exotic species in coastal, estaurine, and marineecosystems. Conference topics will include:

� Research on ecological and genetic consequences ofbioinvasions

� Patterns of invasions in time and spaceIntentional and unintentional transport vectors (includingballast water)

� Environmental management and assessment possibilities

� Economic impacts

For more information see:http://massbay.mit.edu/exoticspecies/conf2/

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the host sponsor of thisConference. This annual four-day conference is widely consideredthe most comprehensive forum for:

� The review of accumulated scientific knowledge� Presentation of the latest field research� Introduction of new technological developments for

prevention, monitoring, control and mitigation� Discussion of policy, legislation, public education and

outreach initiatives related to aquatic invasive species

For more information see http://www.aquatic-invasive-species-conference.orgContact: Elizabeth Muckle-Jeffs at profedge@renc.igs.net or